| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled edit
The tone of this section is clearly not objective. Example: "It ignored the possibility that Iraq had actually complied. This was the case even though Husseini in other instances had questioned the U.S. government claim that Iraq had not complied."
Maybe a "Controversy" section would clear this up.
The subject (Husseini) admits starting this entry himself despite knowing it is proscribed, and that fact is actually linked to (it's on his private blog) in the External links section. In his blog entry, he seems to claim that he "compensated" (my choice of word) for violating the self-editing policy by deliberately criticising himself. Unfortunately he used the term "crited", and from the context one cannot tell whether he meant "cited", i.e. made a typo, or "criticized", i.e. used some obscure journalist-speak abbr.
As for the actual 'controversy', I'm not sure I see it... someone help me with this? TimProof 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)